So, in a simplified form, you're saying that you won't believe that any tree falls in the forest unless you see and hear it for yourself? A herd of lumberjacks could return after their day's work, and tell you how many they cut down, but you're not going to believe them?

============================================================Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

Do you seriously need circumnavigation on a flat Earth explained to you?

Go on, then, explain it. Show me the route it would have taken, what speed it would have done. I observed it from North UK.

A bit of faked footage and a plane with a radio on would, but sure.

Doesn't fit with observations and evidence. Planes don't run 24/7. Planes aren't the same shape as the ISS. Nobody sees the ISS alongside a refuelling tanker. All you have is an allegation of faked footage. Where's your proof of it?

You are conflating facts with what you choose to draw from them. You think that because you are told those claims and videos are explained by space travel, that space travel is the only possible explanation. It's a bizarre tendency among REers I've seen on multiple topics: the same observation may have multiple explanations, yet so many REers struggle to grasp that.

Yet you provide no plausible alternative.

============================================================Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

Do you seriously need circumnavigation on a flat Earth explained to you?

Go on, then, explain it. Show me the route it would have taken, what speed it would have done. I observed it from North UK.

A bit of faked footage and a plane with a radio on would, but sure.

Doesn't fit with observations and evidence. Planes don't run 24/7. Planes aren't the same shape as the ISS. Nobody sees the ISS alongside a refuelling tanker. All you have is an allegation of faked footage. Where's your proof of it?

You are conflating facts with what you choose to draw from them. You think that because you are told those claims and videos are explained by space travel, that space travel is the only possible explanation. It's a bizarre tendency among REers I've seen on multiple topics: the same observation may have multiple explanations, yet so many REers struggle to grasp that.

Yet you provide no plausible alternative.

If you want to know the route the ISS takes over the Earth, use google, what's the point in asking that?The only reason planes don't run 24/7 is because they don't need to, aerial refuelling and a few basic bits of maintainence and they're perfectly capable of it. And I notice you ignored what I said about where the fuel comes from. All you have is the allegation of space travel, where's your proof of it?Lose the damn double standard already. Space travel does not get special treatment just because they say it or because you believe it.

Nothing would ever be plausible to you if it dares disagree with your preconceptions. I'm tryign to talk logic, you're trying to talk insistence.

My DE model explained here. Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

Do you seriously need circumnavigation on a flat Earth explained to you?Go on, then, explain it. Show me the route it would have taken, what speed it would have done. I observed it from North UK.If you want to know the route the ISS takes over the Earth, use google, what's the point in asking that?

The point in asking is that YOU asked me if I wanted something explained, and I said yes, please explain it. You're not explaining it. I'm confident I know its route around the globe, how about you explain what you implied you could?

And I notice you ignored what I said about where the fuel comes from.

Do you mean the bit about "Missions take the place of refuelling"?

I'm trying to talk logic, you're trying to talk insistence.

Where's the logic in asking if I want something explained to me, then when I say "Yes, please explain", then asking what the point of me asking is?

However, if I DO ask google, the answer will be that the ISS is in orbit, some 250 miles up, with an orbit duration of 90 mins.

You say the same observation can have multiple explanations, but you're not providing any satisfactory explanations. Theorising about the ISS being a refuellable plane, allegations of fake footage, radio transmissions from a plane, etc. are just wild-assed guesswork. Where's any evidence to back up your guesswork?

« Last Edit: July 12, 2018, 05:32:52 PM by Tumeni »

============================================================Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

Do you seriously need circumnavigation on a flat Earth explained to you?Go on, then, explain it. Show me the route it would have taken, what speed it would have done. I observed it from North UK.If you want to know the route the ISS takes over the Earth, use google, what's the point in asking that?

The point in asking is that YOU asked me if I wanted something explained, and I said yes, please explain it. You're not explaining it. I'm confident I know its route around the globe, how about you explain what you implied you could?

And I notice you ignored what I said about where the fuel comes from.

Do you mean the bit about "Missions take the place of refuelling"?

I'm trying to talk logic, you're trying to talk insistence.

Where's the logic in asking if I want something explained to me, then when I say "Yes, please explain", then asking what the point of me asking is?

However, if I DO ask google, the answer will be that the ISS is in orbit, some 250 miles up, with an orbit duration of 90 mins.

You say the same observation can have multiple explanations, but you're not providing any satisfactory explanations. Theorising about the ISS being a refuellable plane, allegations of fake footage, radio transmissions from a plane, etc. are just wild-assed guesswork. Where's any evidence to back up your guesswork?

I am not going to put up with blatant timewasting. You know the path, pick your favorite FE map, draw that path on it. Ta-da! What more do you want? Ok, why are my explanations unsatisfactory, beyond the fact you disagree with them? For all your constant repitition of that I don't think I've ever seen you bother to justify it. Where's any evidence to back up your claim that it's in space? Oh, right, you don't need it. Or, wait, is the fact that it explains the sight of it etc enough for that, but not for anything else? Drop. The. Damn. Douible. Standard.

My DE model explained here. Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

So, in a simplified form, you're saying that you won't believe that any tree falls in the forest unless you see and hear it for yourself? A herd of lumberjacks could return after their day's work, and tell you how many they cut down, but you're not going to believe them?

If I am not the one paying them, I don't care either way. But if I paid them to cut down that tree, you're damn right I'll check for myself. No, I would not just take their word for it. No more than I trust a barber to cut the back of my hair properly. No, get the mirror out and let me see for myself.

Do you seriously need circumnavigation on a flat Earth explained to you?Go on, then, explain it. Show me the route it would have taken, what speed it would have done. I observed it from North UK.If you want to know the route the ISS takes over the Earth, use google, what's the point in asking that?

The point in asking is that YOU asked me if I wanted something explained, and I said yes, please explain it. You're not explaining it. I'm confident I know its route around the globe, how about you explain what you implied you could?

And I notice you ignored what I said about where the fuel comes from.

Do you mean the bit about "Missions take the place of refuelling"?

I'm trying to talk logic, you're trying to talk insistence.

Where's the logic in asking if I want something explained to me, then when I say "Yes, please explain", then asking what the point of me asking is?

However, if I DO ask google, the answer will be that the ISS is in orbit, some 250 miles up, with an orbit duration of 90 mins.

You say the same observation can have multiple explanations, but you're not providing any satisfactory explanations. Theorising about the ISS being a refuellable plane, allegations of fake footage, radio transmissions from a plane, etc. are just wild-assed guesswork. Where's any evidence to back up your guesswork?

I am not going to put up with blatant timewasting. You know the path, pick your favorite FE map, draw that path on it. Ta-da! What more do you want? Ok, why are my explanations unsatisfactory, beyond the fact you disagree with them? For all your constant repitition of that I don't think I've ever seen you bother to justify it. Where's any evidence to back up your claim that it's in space? Oh, right, you don't need it. Or, wait, is the fact that it explains the sight of it etc enough for that, but not for anything else? Drop. The. Damn. Douible. Standard.

Evidence it's in space includes, but is not limited to: Photo and video from the craft showing Earth at a distance that recognizable landmarks match the size they would appear based on the given height. Photo and video of craft seen to launch from Earth, docking with it a relatively short while later in some cases. Cry 'fake' until you lose your voice, I've yet to see anyone 'debunk' a photo or video to a sufficient degree as to place the fact it's fake beyond all reasonable doubt. In court, that would be evidence. Do you have any physical or verifiable evidence that your own claims are true?

As for the thread topic, at present I'm not honestly sure. I like to think I've explored the topic as thoroughly as I can over the past year. The ins and outs of as many ideas as I can. But I've yet to find one that comes close to explaining simple everyday experiences without being in contradiction with basic experiments I've done myself. The largest head scratcher in my experience has been lasers (and similar) over water. But one curiosity does not a hypothesis prove. I guess I would need tangible/verifiable evidence that a claim unique to FE is correct. But so far the closest has been the laser experiments, and those vary so widely I'd as soon throw ALL of them out as a poorly designed experiment/test.

Evidence it's in space includes, but is not limited to: Photo and video from the craft showing Earth at a distance that recognizable landmarks match the size they would appear based on the given height. Photo and video of craft seen to launch from Earth, docking with it a relatively short while later in some cases. Cry 'fake' until you lose your voice, I've yet to see anyone 'debunk' a photo or video to a sufficient degree as to place the fact it's fake beyond all reasonable doubt. In court, that would be evidence. Do you have any physical or verifiable evidence that your own claims are true?

Why is the onus on me to prove a random bit of footage is false? Why should it be debunked beyond 'all reasonable doubt' when there is no reason to accept it as genuine in the first place?The default state is not 'space travel is real,' the default state is neutrality. I claim space travel is not real as a conclusion of what I have learned about the Earth's shape and space travel being impossible. You claim it is real on the basis of these videos, but I have not seen any video that could not be faked. The fact that the RE default seems to just be to insist it's accurate but never prove it really speaks volumes.

My DE model explained here. Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

Evidence it's in space includes, but is not limited to: Photo and video from the craft showing Earth at a distance that recognizable landmarks match the size they would appear based on the given height. Photo and video of craft seen to launch from Earth, docking with it a relatively short while later in some cases. Cry 'fake' until you lose your voice, I've yet to see anyone 'debunk' a photo or video to a sufficient degree as to place the fact it's fake beyond all reasonable doubt. In court, that would be evidence. Do you have any physical or verifiable evidence that your own claims are true?

Why is the onus on me to prove a random bit of footage is false? Why should it be debunked beyond 'all reasonable doubt' when there is no reason to accept it as genuine in the first place?The default state is not 'space travel is real,' the default state is neutrality. I claim space travel is not real as a conclusion of what I have learned about the Earth's shape and space travel being impossible. You claim it is real on the basis of these videos, but I have not seen any video that could not be faked. The fact that the RE default seems to just be to insist it's accurate but never prove it really speaks volumes.

Actually I base it's real based more so on Sputnik than any of these videos. They're just further evidence. Sputnik is the originator of all of this, along with a few other things during that era. As for 'what you have learned etc' that's perfectly fine. I happen to disagree with many of your conclusions (based on your DE model information) but that's alright. Nothing says I have to, and vice versa. You claim, repeatedly, that there is no evidence these things are in space. The biggest evidence imo is the photo and video sent from up there, combined with Sputnik. I'm not here to attempt to prove those photo/videos are real, just as you aren't here to delve into the workings of your DE model. I could care less if you don't believe them. I've seen nothing that has been able to convince me every single image and video is faked. You believe you've seen/discovered things that mean they are required to be fake as a consequence. That's great. I look forward to seeing your evidence sweep the world.

The biggest evidence imo is the photo and video sent from up there, combined with Sputnik. I'm not here to attempt to prove those photo/videos are real, just as you aren't here to delve into the workings of your DE model.

I'm happy to discuss my model, I'm just not going through it from scratch every time I'm asked about a detail. I do however make sure to link to where all my evidence is located. If you're not here to justify yourself in a discussion, don't post in it. The simple fact is photo sand videos are not real by default, that's something that needs to be proven. Sure, on casual levels that proof could be something as simple as "What's the point in lying?" but on this topic where there's every possible motive to want to have footage of space travel, the question is even more important.

My DE model explained here. Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

I am not going to put up with blatant timewasting. You know the path, pick your favorite FE map, draw that path on it. Ta-da! What more do you want? Ok, why are my explanations unsatisfactory, beyond the fact you disagree with them? For all your constant repitition of that I don't think I've ever seen you bother to justify it. Where's any evidence to back up your claim that it's in space? Oh, right, you don't need it. Or, wait, is the fact that it explains the sight of it etc enough for that, but not for anything else? Drop. The. Damn. Douible. Standard.

Facts:The ISS follows a specific path, travelling the world around in 91 minutes.Thats 40,075 km in 91 minutes if above a flat earth.We can perfectly capture images of the station with cameras anyone can buy.With a bit of trigonometry and good measurements of its observation, we can easily calculate its altitude which matches the 408 km stated even calculating on a flat earth.Measuring its angular size, using simple trigonometry again, we also reach the size of it to be the stated 100m across.Traveling at more than 6 km/s using flat earth calculations, it would most likely burn up if there was atmosphere.

Facts:The ISS follows a specific path, travelling the world around in 91 minutes.Thats 40,075 km in 91 minutes if above a flat earth.

No, but I'l give you that'd be vaguely the right ballpark.

Quote

With a bit of trigonometry and good measurements of its observation, we can easily calculate its altitude which matches the 408 km stated even calculating on a flat earth.

How? I've seen attempts to do that before, but they run into major issues trying to reliably calculate the distance between two locations on the ground, and getting a good value for the angle of elevation (especially given local geographical quirks), not even mentioning issues with light.

Quote

Traveling at more than 6 km/s using flat earth calculations, it would most likely burn up if there was atmosphere.

It exists. Fact.

Air's still thinner higher up, ask a mountain climber. Sure, something exists, never said otherwise. It just ain't in space.

My DE model explained here. Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

The biggest evidence imo is the photo and video sent from up there, combined with Sputnik. I'm not here to attempt to prove those photo/videos are real, just as you aren't here to delve into the workings of your DE model.

I'm happy to discuss my model, I'm just not going through it from scratch every time I'm asked about a detail. I do however make sure to link to where all my evidence is located. If you're not here to justify yourself in a discussion, don't post in it. The simple fact is photo sand videos are not real by default, that's something that needs to be proven. Sure, on casual levels that proof could be something as simple as "What's the point in lying?" but on this topic where there's every possible motive to want to have footage of space travel, the question is even more important.

I was simply attempting to answer your question on 'where is the evidence it's in space' and offering my own personal opinion on those evidences/objects before commenting on the subject. As far as I'm concerned, the content that I've observed within those videos passes scrutiny of examination for being real. Everything jives with what has been told to be expected, and attempts to falsify it fail. But that's my opinion on the matter. I don't expect to sway you with the same info when you've clearly dug your heels in on the matter. But that's fine. I'm not here to attempt to sway you, but rather try and learn why you and others believe so fervently. But this is digressing significantly beyond the scope of this thread imo, so I'll likely leave it at that.

You know the path, pick your favorite FE map, draw that path on it. Ta-da! What more do you want?"

My "favourite" flat-earth map.... Oh, my. Ha Ha. Hee Hee. Ho Ho.

Ok, why are my explanations unsatisfactory, beyond the fact you disagree with them?

You're not actually explaining anything. "The ISS could be a plane" is not an explanation.

Where's any evidence to back up your claim that it's in space?

Stated already, but ...

First you ask; "Where's any evidence to back up your claim that it's in space?", and someone replies with;"Evidence it's in space includes, but is not limited to: Photo and video from the craft showing Earth ...."and your response is;"Why is the onus on me to prove a random bit of footage is false? "

Why? Because you asked for the evidence in the first place. If you want to decry it as false, you have to prove it so. Why else?

============================================================Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

So, in a simplified form, you're saying that you won't believe that any tree falls in the forest unless you see and hear it for yourself? A herd of lumberjacks could return after their day's work, and tell you how many they cut down, but you're not going to believe them?

If I am not the one paying them, I don't care either way.

You're not paying most all of those regard the world as a globe, so why are you insistent about this subject you don't care about?

============================================================Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

============================================================Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

Why? Because you asked for the evidence in the first place. If you want to decry it as false, you have to prove it so. Why else?

And if you want to claim it's true, you have to prove it so.

Stop being such a goddamn hypocrite. My reason for rejecting it is that I believe space travel is impossible. In the absence of any footage that is not faked, I'm perfectly happy with that. You are the one who constantly brings this up, you are the one that brought it into this thread, you are the one that insists it's true. Put up or shut up.

My DE model explained here. Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

Hi, first post here just joined to find our common ground - globetard and proud of it (as im sure you are of your theory), becsuse we do have a common cause of questioning authourity

Im not here for the theory, and as you said OP these are as subjective as our personalities - we are our own authourities surrounded by others - and life/society is a complex, really confusing thing.

An encounter with a fellow flatter on the killing floor of youtube, (yes i have called you "mad" flatters arguing theory/evidence) led to a point by him "we cant convince each other" - on theory at least.

But on your questions PJ, space is going to be touchable, if/when Virgin Galactic gets operational - just going to be $10,000. Just look at them in the news and you'll find one of the shuttles exploded midair (atmospheric testing, they havent gone up yet)

Id put your Antarctica as much more reachable. Its also a pricey pain in the arse and a hassle to get there, and getting onto the continent needs a valid reason because its a world heritage site, and theyre trying to keep it pristine.

Or just do a polar/icewall expedition, to see for yourselves. Its hectic, you need a lot of survival training, you need crevasse training, a lot of snowclothes and camp on the way - and its sub zero. But in the interests of scientific questioning and pursuit, right or wrong (science loves mistakes because it focuses the endeavours in the "most probably" correct) that sort of thing can be crowd funded, a research grant.

After all science was seen by Stephen Hawking as "touching the face of god" and the Vatican is a massive patron of science, because science/faith are seen as the same thing - religion is who/where god is, science is what/how god did it.

This is your opening, guys. Discuss - and hit me up for Q's. No theory, out of respect for each other - lets accept our theories are both valid.

I'm interested to know what it would take to change your mind. Unfortunately, purported 'Facts' can be subjective based on our interpretation of the evidence, so what would it take to completely convince you that the Earth is a globe / flat...

Why? Because you asked for the evidence in the first place. If you want to decry it as false, you have to prove it so. Why else?

And if you want to claim it's true, you have to prove it so.

See all the external references I've cited already.

My reason for rejecting it is that I believe space travel is impossible.

So what? There's a history of space travel going back to 1957, with photographic, documentary, and anecdotal proof in abundance. There's the proof, right there. Making up wild-ass theories about the moon being a superheated cylinder are just your imagination working overtime

In the absence of any footage that is not faked, I'm perfectly happy with that.

But it's not just photos and film. Right back to the first orbital craft, Sputnik - the Americans and others tracked it by its radio signal. It beeped when overhead, and faded away as it orbited. Not a plane. I could cite numerous other examples where the presence of the craft above is proved by non-photographic means, some I mentioned previously.

With the right equipment, you can download data from weather and other satellites yourself. There's instructional video on YouTube on how to do this. Recovery of lunar samples, data from orbital, lunar and deep space craft, laser ranging, space geodesy, all add up into a sizeable tranche of verifiable evidence. And all you can muster is "all the photos are faked" ....

Put up or shut up.

I've put up way more than you have. Every time you come up with a one-line dismissal, I cite multiple sources. You're the one who's not putting up anything apart from wild-ass theory...

============================================================Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"